OHV Grants comments

[EZRider]

You have stated that you are here to counter Sandman, Dan.

If your public comments are as well-thought and persuasive as his, then you should have no concern for being subject to ridicule.

EZ

[Dan]

I have not stated that I'm here to counter S@ndman. I have stated that I am here to counter lies about the OHV user group, our activities, and the lies perpetuated about their alleged effects on endangered species and the environment. To the extent that his comments here fit that category, I'll oppose them.

Your complete misunderstanding of why I'm here explains a lot about your anti-OHV advocacy, and hints that you misunderstand a lot about who your chosen enemies really are, EZ. Perhaps you need to re-examine that.

[Ken@WonderValley]

Dan has characterized himself as a bold spokesman who is not afraid to take a public position on OHV issues.

I stand behind Dan. I am also a public spokesperson.

Enviro-nitwits believe there’s just enough of them, and way too many of us.

So they put forth policies and ideologies that threaten (directly and indirectly) the lives of people in order to “save the planet.”

Not for me, or my children.

But for them and their elite selected few

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcnVzjakBQA

[EZRider]

I am glad to hear that you bear no personal animosity towards Sandman, Dan.

As for the label "anti-OHV", I realize you are prone to blanket condemnation and so give it little importance.

EZ

[Plays In The Dirt]

Dan has characterized himself as a bold spokesman who is not afraid to take a public position on OHV issues.

"Enviro-nitwits believe there’s just enough of them, and way too many of us."

I see, so what you're saying is that those who wish to slow-down, eliminate, or control the negative practices man has on the environment are all "nitwits,"?

"So they put forth policies and ideologies that threaten (directly and indirectly) the lives of people in order to “save the planet.”

And just how have you been threatened?

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcnVzjakBQA

"

Oh that's rich! I trust that this is your position on the earth you live on?

[Dan]

I am glad to hear that you bear no personal animosity towards Sandman, Dan.

As for the label "anti-OHV", I realize you are prone to blanket condemnation and so give it little importance.

EZ

First, it's S@ndman, not Sandman. Second, how do you feel about S@ndman's "blanket condemnation" of OHV users?

So, as for those who attempt to ridicule OHV advocates here at every turn, post "blanket condemnations" of OHV users, and oppose nearly any pro-OHV proposals, I believe they can fairly be termed "anti-OHV", don't you?

The problem isn't always what one STATES what is their intent. Sometimes, it's actually what they DO that counts. Don't you think, EZ?

[Dan]

Pssst: EZ. What you, Sal, and S@ndman are trying to do to me here......would that qualify for your definition of "rat packing"?

[Allen]

I am glad to hear that you bear no personal animosity towards Sandman, Dan.

As for the label "anti-OHV", I realize you are prone to blanket condemnation and so give it little importance.

EZ

First, it's S@ndman, not Sandman. Second, how do you feel about S@ndman's "blanket condemnation" of OHV users?

So, as for those who attempt to ridicule OHV advocates here at every turn, post "blanket condemnations" of OHV users, and oppose nearly any pro-OHV proposals, I believe they can fairly be termed "anti-OHV", don't you?

The problem isn't always what one STATES what is their intent. Sometimes, it's actually what they DO that counts. Don't you think, EZ?

Come on now Dan! You don't really expect an answer, do you?

[Dan]

I am glad to hear that you bear no personal animosity towards Sandman, Dan.

As for the label "anti-OHV", I realize you are prone to blanket condemnation and so give it little importance.

EZ

First, it's S@ndman, not Sandman. Second, how do you feel about S@ndman's "blanket condemnation" of OHV users?

So, as for those who attempt to ridicule OHV advocates here at every turn, post "blanket condemnations" of OHV users, and oppose nearly any pro-OHV proposals, I believe they can fairly be termed "anti-OHV", don't you?

The problem isn't always what one STATES what is their intent. Sometimes, it's actually what they DO that counts. Don't you think, EZ?

Come on now Dan! You don't really expect an answer, do you?

EZRider NEVER answers the tough questions. That's largely the difference between himself and me. I'll answer the tough questions, and challenge him back. He dodges and changes the subject, choosing some new minor point of mine to satire. That's the stock in trade of people who are wrong, and don't ever want to lose the argument.

ROTFLMAO.

Thank you, Sal.

[EZRider]

I am glad to hear that you bear no personal animosity towards Sandman, Dan.

As for the label "anti-OHV", I realize you are prone to blanket condemnation and so give it little importance.

EZ

First, it's S@ndman, not Sandman. Second, how do you feel about S@ndman's "blanket condemnation" of OHV users?

So, as for those who attempt to ridicule OHV advocates here at every turn, post "blanket condemnations" of OHV users, and oppose nearly any pro-OHV proposals, I believe they can fairly be termed "anti-OHV", don't you?

The problem isn't always what one STATES what is their intent. Sometimes, it's actually what they DO that counts. Don't you think, EZ?

Come on now D@n! You don't really expect an answer, do you?

OK, I fixed it, @llen. Are you h@ppy now?

EZ